Morning journal and courier., 1887-02-09
Wednesday, February 9, 1887
COMMITTEES HEARINGS.

What Was Done Before the Legfs,a- tive Committees at Hartford Kester- day-The Grade Crossing and other Hearings-A Light Day in the House and Senate-A Bill Tor Heating and Lighting Cars-Yales Petition Grant ed-Many Prominent New Haveners Before the Committee on IncOrPOra- tiOns.
 HARTFORD, Feb. S. | Special to the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 The sixth week of the first of the biennial
 sessions of the legislature was opened auspi- | ciously to day. But little business was done either in the Senate or House, but the com | nittees were rushed with business. There
 were many important hearings, and the diff ferent,, persons who were to speak before I more than one found much difficulty in being
 on hand when wanted. There was much
 grumbling on this score to-day among many | of the legislators The important hearings, | and which most interested New Haven CTS, were before the committe on railroads,
 banks, interpretations, labor and temper ance.
 The railroad committee held most inter- l esting and largely attended meeting in their pleasant meeting rooms. The bill consider ed to-day was the one drawn by the railroad | commissioners. It compels from two to five per cent. of crossings to be reduced every year. The terms of the bill are as follows in reference to the dividend paying" roads:
 Roads that have paid five per cent. dividend shall pay three-ffths of the cost. Companies that have paid five per cent. but not more than eight shall bear seven -tenths of the ex-
 pense and companies that have paid more
 than eight per cent. shall pay four-ffths of
 the cost. The report of the railroad com
 missionors was accepted, there being no one
 appearing to be heard on the subject. The
 crossing bill was then taken up.
 MT. G. M Woodruff was the first gentle
 man heard on the bill. He said this was the same bill that was passed by the House last year except as to the apportienment of expense. It was done in accordance with the views of the railroad commission. Prior to 1860
 there was no restriction of grade crossings
 In 1870 law was passed prohibiting the laying out of new highway to cross at grade. but the commissioners could only say
 which should go over, not direct an altera-
 tion in the highway. They could also au- thorize grade crossing. In 1883 law was passed forbidding any new railroad to cross at grade except for approved reasons in writ ing; also that no new highway should under any circumstances be laid out to cross grade The commissioners had power to order the removal of grade crossings, but their inter- ference must needs meet opposition. Last year they asked for law forbidding the making of any new grade crossings Thus of two proposed roads only about per cent. of their proposed grade crossings were allowed by the board. It was the feeling of the board that if the abolition of grade crossings was ordered by speci fic law there would be less objection than when the responsibility rested with the commissioners. MT. Wood ruff explained the proposed apportionment of expense as being on the theory that the railroads and the highway had the same right of existence and neither had any rights against the others as to the cost of changes from a layout which had been authorized by law. It was intended to make the division of cost correspond to the supposed benefit to each party. The legislature had generally seem ed to feel that one-half was not too much for town to pay, but the people at large cer- tainly took different view. Many of these crossings can be done away with at a cost of five hundred dollars and some for half that amount The average is raised by the ex- treme cost of some large improvements, such that of the Asylum street crossing in this city. In most places the cost would be mod crate. The railroad companies would have this a tax on property, but it corresponded in this to other forms of taxation. Mr.
 Wno1rrT at 1annth tha nafI1ra If the provision for dividing the cost of doing away with grade crossings.
 MT. Henry c. Robinson appeared when there was a call for those who opposed the bill. He said that he was not exactly in opposition, but came to make few suggestions. He thought the bill before the committee was perhaps not the best one to adopt If it were he hoped they would recommend it. Grade crossings should be abolished. It was the interest of the State that this should Ee done even if the railroads had to pay for all. He objected, however, to some of the features of the bill before the committee. It is cording to law that the public highways of both kinds have equal rights. Each should bear its part of the cost The question is one between the travelling public of the railroads and the travelling public of the highways. The Meadow stI eet crossing in New Haven is occupied by more trains than are used by either the Stonington or the Naugatuck, and the Derby pays no dividends, and it hardly seems fair that it should escape all responsi- bility for the great inconvenience it causes. Turn the agreement around and apply 1t to towns. There should be no respect for per sons. Treat all alike. It is not true that the of any grade crossing is confined to the railroad and to the town. There is gen. eral use which might well be covered by contribution from the State say of twenty five per cent. of the cost. Or a sum may be set aside from the large annual tax income for the abolition of grade crossings. He read to show how the railroads pay -ffths of the State tax and then suggested that ten per cent. of their payment be set aside as fund for the abolishing of grade crossings. To Mr. Woodruff MT. Robinson said that he had no objection to the company's part of the bill. Mir. Robinson is attorney for the Consolidat- ed railroad.
 President Yeamans of the New Haven and Northampton company, and B. D. Robbins of Wethersfield and others gave their views on the matter. The general view taken by these was that the State should come for ward and open her treasure box to help in abolishing the crossings. Ralph O. Phelps, the gentleman from Simsbury, who created so much mirth before the labor committee by his rather antiquated but logical views on lubor, gave very interesting view of tEe maCC0T. 1n0 TdllrOduSJ 5uI0 AOJ oAo 1AiO spring and heirs of the State, and why doesn't she protect them' If it were not for the railroads half the towns would be but hamlets. Let the State appropriate yearly money to help abolish grade crossings.
 House bills 15, 57 and 126 regarding the hours of labor were considered collectively this afternoon by the labor committee, all three being constructed about the same and meaning virtually ten hour law for women and children. The principal bill was the one introduced by Representative Milner, of Plainfield It is the Rhode Island law. It provides that no minor under sixteen years of age and no woman shall Se employed in laboring in any manufacturing concern more than ten hours in any day except when it is necessary to make repairing to prevent the interruption of the ordinary running of the business or when different appointment of the hours of labor is made for the sole purpose of making a shorter days work for one day of the week. And in no case shall the hours of labor exceed sixty in week. Every employer shall post in con- spicuous place in every room where such persons are employed notice stating the